Waldemar Heckel long ago suggested that the Macedonian nobility had its own form of cursus honorum, with progression through the ranks of ‘hoi paides basilikoi’ followed by a stint in the ‘agema’ of the hypaspists before moving on to higher office.
Heckel recognised that members of the Hypaspist corps could be termed ‘hetairoi’ but rather than see these as a separate body within the corps he seems to consider this merely an artefact of the varied terminology favoured by Classical style. This is certainly a reasonable assumption, those who attempt to foist constitutions and increasingly complex socio-military groups upon the conventionally, ‘Homeric’ kingdom of Macedonia can be shown to have read far too much into what is simply a varied vocabulary. That said, I am now going to propose that those hypaspists who are termed ‘hetairoi’ or, more fully, ‘hoi hetairoi amph’auton’(henceforth HHAA), did form a distinct group within the ranks of the ‘agema’ of the hypaspists. Previously I had thought that this phrase denoted that section of the ‘agema’ charged with the daily duty of protecting the King and that this function was shared by the whole of the ‘agema’. I now, contend that HHAA were that daily guard detachment but that they were drawn not from the whole ‘agema’ but from those graduating Pages who were collectively termed ‘hetairoi’, possibly further defined by ‘basilikoi’.
Textual support for this thesis is, as usual, scant; it is further complicated by the problems of using a Latin author to supplement the evidence of the Greek ones. If the Greek sources do not call the same unit by the same name, how certain can we be that Curtius is using a consistent system of rendering what he found in his sources.
Despite a casual perception of rhetoricism and confused battle narratives, Curtius is much more consistent with his terminology than Arrian; ‘armiger’ is used for Hypaspist, ‘custodis corporis’ is more ambiguous but this is due to his sources’ usage of ‘somatophylax’, as in Arrian it applies sometimes to the Seven and sometimes to the ‘agema’ but also, unlike Arrian, to the ‘ile basilikos’ or the ‘agema hippeon’. Curtius almost certainly used both Ptolemy and Kleitarchos as his main sources and he found technical terms in both as passages which are certainly not Ptolemaic can be shown to use technical terms. This has implications for the value of Diodoros’ technical details.
A group that has not been pinned down are Curtius’ ‘noblisssimi iuvenes’. They have frequently been identified with the Pages but ‘iuvenis’ does not fit with the age range of the Pages. It is true that Curtius does use the term for the Pages, but these are examples of the variation demanded by good style, Heckel gives VIII 6 viii
7 Igitur Hermolaus, puer nobilis ex regia cohorte, cum aprum telo occupasset, quem rex ferire destinaverat, iussu eius verberibus adfectus est. Quam ignominiam aegre ferens deflere apud Sostratum coepit: ex eadem cohorte erat Sostratus, amore eius ardens. 8 Qui cum laceratum corpus, in quo deperibat, intueretur, forsitan olim ob aliam quoque causam regi infestus, iuvenem sua sponte iam motum data fide acceptaque perpulit, ut occidendi regem consilium secum iniret. 9 Nec puerili impetu rem executi sunt:
Hermolaus is referred to as ‘iuvenis’ but in the previous verse he is ‘puer’ and in the subsequent he does not act ‘puerili impetu’, -with childish precipitation- this looks like variation as style to me. He further mentions 6 xxv
Callisthenen non ut participem facinoris nominatum esse constabat, sed solitum puerorum sermonibus vituperantium criminantiumque regem faciles aures praebere. 25 Quidam adiciunt, cum Hermolaus apud eum quoque verberatum se a rege quereretur, dixisse Callisthenen, meminisse debere eos iam viros esse: idque ad consolandam patientiam verberum an ad incitandum iuvenum dolorem dictum esset, in ambiguo fuisse.
Once again the Pages have been termed ‘pueri’ in the preceding verse, and even ‘vires’ by Callisthenes! Curtius’ use of ‘iuvenes’ here, is slightly more than variation, he is contradicting Callisthenes’ flattery but gently; Callisthenes is a victim in Curtius’ story and the milder contrast of ‘vires’ and ‘iuvenes’ rather than ‘pueri’ serves to deflect the ridiculous claim that the Pages were ‘men’ as Alexander puts it at 8 iii
servis quoque pueros huius aetatis verberare concedimus
we even allow slaves to beat boys of his age
.
If Pages are ‘pueri’ then the ‘noblissimi iuvenes’ must be another body, one whose duties are mentioned by Curtius in the Philip brother of Lysimachos incident VIII 2 xxxv; they accompany the King on foot and in arms it seems that this body is the subject of this passage, VIII 11 ixff
9 Intra septimum diem cavernas expleverant, cum rex sagittarios et Agrianos iubet per ardua niti: iuvenesque promptissimos ex sua cohorte XXX delegit. 10 Duces his dati sunt Charus et Alexander, quem rex nominis, quod sibi cum eo commune esset, admonuit. Ac primo, quia tam manifestum periculum erat, ipsum regem discrimen subire non placuit: 11 sed ut signum tuba datum est, vir audaciae promptae conversus ad p215corporis custodes sequi se iubet primusque invadit in rupem. Nec deinde quisquam Macedonum substitit relictisque stationibus sua sponte regem sequebantur. 12 Multorum miserabilis fuit casus, quos ex praerupta rupe lapsos amnis praeterfluens hausit, triste spectaculum etiam non periclitantibus: cum vero alieno exitio, quid ipsis timendum foret, admonerentur, in metum misericordia versa non extinctos, sed semetipsos deflebant. 13 Et iam eo perventum erat, unde sine pernicie nisi victores redire non possent, ingentia saxa in subeuntes provolventibus barbaris, quis perculsiº instabili et lubrico gradu praecipites recidebant. 14 Evaserant tamen Alexander et Charus, quos cum XXX delectis praemiserat rex, et iam pugnare comminus coeperant: sed cum superne tela barbari ingererent, saepius ipsi feriebantur quam vulnerabant. 15 Ergo Alexander et nominis sui et promissi memor, dum acrius quam cautius dimicat, confossus undique obruitur. 16 Quem ut Charus iacentem conspexit, ruere in hostem omnium praeter ultionem immemor coepit multosque hasta, quosdam gladio interemit. Sed cum tot unum incesserent manus, super amici corpus procubuit exanimis. 17 Haud secus, quam par erat, promptissimorum iuvenum ceterorumque militum interitu commotus rex signum receptui dedit.
In this way before the seventh day they had wholly filled the caverns, when the king ordered the archers and the Agriani to try to mount the heights. Also he chose thirty of the most active iuvenes from his own cohort. As leaders he gave them Charus and Alexander, and the king exhorted the latter to remember the name which he had in common with himself. And, at first, because the danger was so evident, the king himself decided not to run the risk, but when the signal was given by the trumpet, that prince of ready daring, turning to his Guards, ordered them to follow him and was the first to climb upon the rock. Then not one of the Macedonians stayed behind, but leaving their posts of their own accord, they followed the king. Many met a wretched death for they slipped from the steep rock, and the river which flowed by swallowed them up, a sad sight even for those who were not at the moment in danger; but when by the death of others they were reminded what they themselves had to fear, compassion changing to dread, they lamented not the dead, but themselves.
And now they had gone so far that except as victors, they could not return without destruction, since the barbarians were rolling down huge stones upon them as they went up, and when they were struck by these while their footing was unsteady and slipping, they fell back headlong. Nevertheless Alexander and Charus, whom the king had sent ahead with thirty picked men, had gained the height and were already fighting hand to hand; but since the barbarians showered them with javelins from above, they themselves were wounded more often than they inflicted wounds. Therefore Alexander, remembering his name and his promise, while fighting more fearlessly than cautiously, was struck from every side and overwhelmed. When Charus saw him lying prostrate, unmindful of everything but revenge he began to rush upon the enemy and killed many with his lance, some with his sword; but when so many assailed one man, he fell lifeless upon the body of his friend. The king, troubled as was natural by the deaths of these most valiant iuvenes and the rest of his soldiers gave the signal to retreat.
The parallel passage in Arrian is IV30
ON the first day his army constructed the mound the length of a stade; and on the following day the slingers shooting at the Indians from the part already finished, assisted by the missiles which were hurled from the military engines, repulsed the sallies which they made against the men who were constructing the mound. He went on with the work for three days without intermission, and on the fourth day a few of the Macedonians forcing their way occupied a small eminence which was on a level with the rock. Without taking any rest, Alexander went on with the mound, being desirous of connecting his artificial rampart with the eminence which the few men were now occupying for him. But then the Indians, being alarmed at the indescribable audacity of the Macedonians, who had forced their way to the eminence, and seeing that the mound was already united with it, desisted from attempting any longer to resist. They sent their herald to Alexander, saying that they were willing to surrender the rock, if he would grant them a truce. But they had formed the design of wasting the day by continually delaying the ratification of the truce, and of scattering themselves in the night with the view of escaping one by one to their own abodes. When Alexander discovered this plan of theirs, he allowed them time to commence their retreat, and to remove the guard which was placed all round the place. He remained quiet until they began their retreat; then taking 7oo of the body-guards( somatophylakes) and shield-bearing infantry(hypaspists), he was the first to scale the rock at the part of it abandoned by the enemy; and the Macedonians ascended after him, one in one place another in another, drawing each other up. These men at the concerted signal turned themselves upon the retreating barbarians, and killed many of them in their flight. Others retreating with panic terror perished by leaping down the precipices; and thus the rock which had been inexpugnable to Heracles was occupied by Alexander. He offered sacrifice upon it, and arranged a fort, committing the superintendence of the garrison to Sisicottus, who long before had deserted from the Indians to Bessus in Bactra, and after Alexander had acquired possession of the country of Bactria, entered his army and appeared to be eminently trustworthy.
At chapter 28 Alexander’s force is described, ‘He then took the bowmen, the Agrianians, and the brigade of Coenus, and selecting the most nimble as well as the best-armed men from the rest of the phalanx, with 200 of the Companion cavalry and zoo horse-bowmen, he advanced to the rock.’ The very next chapter Ptolemy takes command of some hypaspists, so we have to add them to the list although they may be subsumed by ‘the most nimble as well as the best-armed men from the rest of the phalanx’, where ‘phalanx’ means all of the infantry capable of standing in the line of battle.
It has been suggested that Arrian’s ‘somatophylakes’ are the Seven and that each took command of 100 hypaspists; this is not just simplistic but demonstrably wrong, Perdikkas and Hephaistion were both absent bridging the Indus, nor were there 100 man units in the Macedonian army. For that matter there is no 700 unit either, I incline towards this being a scribal error ‘hepta’ for ‘pente’ or, it might just represent a regular Hypaspist pentkosiarchia and a hekatostyes of the agema, here ‘somatophylakes’ possibly that of the ‘hetairoi’ if we are to give force to Curtius’ description of ‘iuvenesque promptissimos ex sua cohorte’.
If we accept, for the moment that this body did exist, then certain passages are illuminated by the theory. Theopompos’ witticism that Philip’s hetairoi were more like hetairai (his Companions were rather Hookers) makes sense if he was referring to this putative body of former Pages, there were evidently homosexual pairings in both groups. The general ‘hetairoi’ who, with their households, formed the Cavalry of the Companions (‘hoi hippeis ton hetairon’) were for the most part hardmen, not the fliberty-gibberts implied by ‘hetairai’. The ‘hetairoi amph’auton’, however were part of the modernised Court, and probably instituted by Philip II, which would explain why he is credited with the institution of the Pages (who seem to have an older pedigree), the distinction between the Pages and their subsequent service as ‘hetairoi’ was not clear to the Greeks.
Something too can now be made of Curtius’ claim that the Pages ‘Haec cohors velut seminarium ducum praefectorumque apud Macedonas fuit’ Haec cohors velut seminarium ducum praefectorumque apud Macedonas fuit’ VII 6 vi, - a school for the leaders and satraps of the Macedonians – Arrian frequently characterises the satraps and other officials that Alexander appoints as ‘ho hetairos’
(I 17, Pausanias, epimeletes of the acropolis of Sardis,
II 12, Leonattos, and Hephaistion ptol/aristo version and Kleitarchan visit to the captured Persian Queen,
II 27, Neoptolemos first to mount wall of Gaza,
III 5, Pantaleon, phrourarch of Memphis,Polemo phrouarch of Pelusion, Eugnostos son of Xenophantos, grammateus of the mercenaries,
III 6, Menandros,satrap of Lydia,
III 16 Mazaros phrouarch of citadel of Susa,
III 22, Tlepolemos son of Pythophanos organizes baggage on journey from Parthia to Hyrkania,
III 25, Anaxippos left with forty hippokontistai to guard passage of troops through Sogdia,
III 26 Polydamas, murderer of Parmenion,
III 28, Erygios and Karanos sent to fight Satibarzanes, Neiloxenos son of Satyros episcopon of the soldiers,
III 29, Archelaos son of Androkles prourarch of Aornos, Stasanor sent to be satrap of Areia,
IV 12, Leonattos and Demetrios son of Pythonax, both present at the proskynesis experiment,
IV 22 Nikanor set to regulate city of Alexandria,
IV 28, Nikanor, satrap of hither India,
VII 18, Apollodoros of Amphipolis, strategos of Babylon garrison
For the most part these men are given minor military posts, phrouarchia or command of garrisons in eight out of nineteen cases, two others supervise baggage trains, two lead an expedition, three become satraps, one after organising a city. Most of this looks like the first step in the administration rather than posts suitable for landed grandees. Certainly we can eliminate Menandros, who had a child of about ten when he was appointed in 331, as his son became a Page in 328, he was probably thirtyish, too old to be a graduated Page. Demetrios and Leonattos, at IV 12 were both members of the Seven, Arrian notes Leonattos’ elevation in place of Arrybas, who had died at III 5, and Demetrios is arrested for complicity in Philotas’ crime and is replaced by Ptolemy Lagou at III 27 v. this may be a Greek source’s error, the Demetrios tale is given as a logos and it is uncertain whence comes that of Leonattos.
We also have the ‘hetairoi’ sent to scout Dareios’ advance at Issos by triakonter and the presence of a group of ‘hetairoi’ at the war-council, the first is a task suitable for young men on the Staff; formerly I saw these as two of the Seven but it would be a massive duplication of effort to send two of these high rankers, whereas the report of a twenty something could well be improved by two sets of eyes. If the ‘hetairoi’ at the council are not the Seven, as I have argued elsewhere, then the personal guard of the king makes more sense than either the generality of the cavalry or their leaders, besides the ilarchs, who are noted separately. In which case Arrian’s list is not strictly hierarchical but the ‘hetairoi’ owe their position to their association with the king ie one should read at Ii 16 viii
αὐτὸς δὲ συναγαγὼν τούς τε ἑταίρους καὶ τοὺς ἡγεμόνας τῆς στρατιᾶς καὶ ταξιάρχας καὶ ἰλάρχας ἔλεξεν ὧδε
He called together his personal guards and the leaders of the soldiers, both the infantry commanders and the cavalry commanders, speaking thus.
Also at the Polytimetos IV 6 I Andromachus, Menedemus, and Karanos are described as ‘τοὺς δὲ Μακεδόνας τε εἶναι καὶ ἑταίρους βασιλέως’ – not merely Macedonians but Royal Companions – Karanos was mentioned as a ‘hetairos’ at III 28, where Erygios’ own hetairate may be the artefact of an inferred distributive when the ‘twn hetairwn’ applies only to Karanos ( Curtius describes Erygios as ‘gravis aetate’ and ‘canietes’- heavy with age and white-haired). The action, or rather inaction of these three suits three tyros better than three experienced men.
Which all brings us to Diodoros’ description of the person to whom Eurylochos turns, Curtius’ Metron, as a page while Curtius calls him a ‘iuvenis nobilis’; is it good method to assume that Diodoros, who scarcely uses a technical term, has had a sudden advent of accuracy, and from that decide that Curtius’ ‘iuvenis nobilis’ means Page here when elsewhere it clearly does not? We can decide on a little more than which author we think the more consistent. Metron is in charge of weapons in the armoury, this is nowhere given as a duty assigned to a ‘Pais Basilikos’.
When you think about, it free-choice is the only possible option.
The Companion cavalry and phalanx were both recruited territorially from district or city ( see e.g. Hatzopoulos and Errington referred to above for latest evidence), and the units all had a strong territorial 'ethnic' sense.
